Hall v. Dept. of Corrections

Judicial review of an administrative rule is limited to its challenge on the face of the rule and not “as applied.”

Hall challenged the constitutionality of two administrative rules (OAR 291-105-0069 & OAR 291-158-0065) which allow for the Department of Corrections (DOC) to use restitution as a sanction for violating DOC rules and “to withdraw money for an inmate's trust account to pay that restitution.” Hall contends that the restitution imposition is a violation of due process rights if the restitution does not result from a criminal conviction or other court-ordered restitution. Hall's main argument evolved from an instance where he was deemed to have breached DOC rules, sanctioned with restitution, and had that restitution taken from his trust account pursuant to OAR 291-158-0065. DOC argues that Hall makes an “as applied” challenge rather than challenging the administrative rules on their face and the Court agreed, indicating that their ability to review is limited to the constitutionality of the rule on its face and not the administrative procedures used to govern those rules. This Court also concluded that statutes used by Hall do not show a limit on DOC's authority, but are examples of court-ordered (or awarded) restitution. These statutes do not limit the DOC's authority and their ability to use restitution as a sanction or the further action of withdrawing money from an inmate's trust account. Administrative rules valid.